Category Archives: sustenance

The day after watching the shocking Frontline documentary, “The Suicide Plan” about assisted suicide and specifically the assisting group, “Final Exit”, who went on trial, I find myself thinking about two things. One, do some of the extending life measures make life so unpleasant that one feels compelled to back out unnaturally? And two, what about the statement of the juror who said he saw no difference between hospice care and self-inflicted death by helium? I think he was referring to how prescribed Morphine, a respiratory suppressant, is sometimes used to hasten death.

I’ll address the second. The horrible thing about “Final Exit” is that the vulnerable despairing person is left alone with them with no family consent. The “Final Exit” team uses a hands-off, instruction-only approach to teach the person how to acquire helium and a plastic bag, they visit the person during the event, sometimes holding down their hands which are described as spasming and tearing at the bag during the final moments of consciousness, then they remove the equipment and leave, intending the body to be discovered by their support person who has no knowledge of this event, with the intent that natural death conclusions will be drawn. All this at the request of the person wishing to die.

This is very different than hospice administered Morphine, which I do not condone in such doses as to hasten death, that the family and hopefully the patient, if conscious, is aware of. If the family isn’t aware, then I believe that deception is wrong too. I think suffering the natural consequences, with as much palliative care as can be safely administered, of terminal illness is less soul-destroying than taking a life.

But if the juror meant that hospice denies artificial means of extending life, so that is equated with prematurely ending a life, then he has placed way too much value in medical interventionism during the end of life. Some people probably think that denying resuscitation or artificial life support is similar to murder. Ethical doctors will make wise judgments. This will cause the family to be supported in these very difficult decisions. To have to go against an aggressive doctor who wants to push endless radiation or chemo on an aged, frail person is stressful.

These are very difficult decisions that I pray God’s mercy will sustain us through as we seek his will.

I have noticed lately that a certain product that I got from Walmart doesn’t do as good a job as it used to. There may be something to the claim that Walmart drives down quality as manufacturers scrimp in order to sell mass amounts at lower prices. I don’t like that, nor that things don’t last as long which fills up landfills quicker. But am I going to vilify and boycot Walmart? No.

For one reason, I see trends. Cheap stuff was made in the 70’s too, and then “new and improved” got to be the popular thing in the ’80’s. Now we’ve swung back to cheap apparently.

Second, as much as I like quality, I think it’s kind of hoity toity to demand it all the time. Quality is expensive, and manufacturers get rich off of that too. So who do you want to get rich, elitist snobs, or penny pinching mass marketers?

Third, there isn’t that much difference to this non discriminating person between a mass produced quality object, and a mass produced less quality object. We lost the cozy hand-crafted feel for things when the cotton gin and mechanical looms were invented. I like Luddites, and wish the industrial revolution hadn’t happened, but there’s really no going back now unless there’s some catastrophic event that disrupts electric current and makes steam production impossible.

Ayn Rand accepted Social Security because she felt that the lifestyle she advocated wasn’t possible, so she received the benefits of socialism as a compensation. Some people think that’s hypocritical, but to me it’s like pick your misery – watch the winners take it all in comfort or stage a hunger strike. I find hunger strikes showy, over-dramatic and obnoxious. I guess I’m trying to be a good sport about the defeat of natural humanity that decisively happened 150 years ago.

“Love was very precious to Ruth now, as of old time. It was one of the faults of her nature to be ready to make any sacrifices for those who loved her, and to value affection almost above its price. She had yet to learn the lesson, that it is more blessed to love than to be beloved; and lonely as the impressible years of her youth had been—without parents, without brother or sister—it was, perhaps, no wonder that she clung tenaciously to every symptom of regard, and could not relinquish the love of any one without a pang.”

The iPad game, Mirrors of Albion, is a must for any Orthodox Christian who is serious about the ascetic life, anyone suffering from Attention Deficit Syndrome or poor impulse control, or any modern person who has unwittingly acquired the subversive habit of frenzied, quick-results-oriented, multitasking.

Warning: if you are not serious about overcoming these habits, or if your list of symptoms also includes impulsive spending or compulsive gambling, run for your life away from this game and do not pass go.

Frugality is one of the required pre-requisites that will motivate you to overcome your above listed bad habits. Otherwise you will quickly and expensively spend your way through the game and miss out on having its magic work on you.

Prioritized goal orientation will also keep you from getting caught up in the endless rabbit holes and needless collections. Therefore, big-spending collectors, also beware of this game.

I wish I’d known to save as much energy and gold as you can at the beginning (an exercise in the value of learning to take care early in life), because you’ll need it later. They both recharge Very Slowly. That’s how one learns to wait and just walk away till later. You’ll find yourself reading *gasp* doing chores *!* or even praying *+* to take up the time. Hints are also expensive, so you’ll learn not to waste them on the untimed games and to replay the timed ones instead of cheating.

If I’d known the above I could have played for free, but since I wasted my resources at the beginning in order to advance quickly, I ended up with a determined one-time-only replenishing purchase that costs about the price of a game download on Big Fish. Hey, it’s summer.

I have a germ of idea. What if God’s preference for Abel also introduced the dynamic of God choosing one person over another, as well as the situational superiority of lamb over produce? I know there is symbology/typology with lamb, but it seems things later evened out somewhat when Communion consisted of bread and grapes.

The Fall introduced division among created things as as well as between God and man. Instead of “they”, it became “you” and “not him”. Pride wants us to make it all about me, so when preference is given to someone else, it can be hard to take. So hard, people can resort to murder. I think maybe “we” is easier, but to be the preferred one is better. This is also why Lucifer fell.

Sharing or giving glory is hard for many. I won’t say all. Why do we feel so entitled? There is probably a redeemable function. Reward is a good motivator, but it can too easily become a pathological need. Some are too susceptible to being captivated by its allure. It is sad when temptation is so strong that potentially good things are best avoided.

Humility attracts grace. What if Cain had said, “Good for you, Abel. I can see why God chose your offering over mine.” His inability to do that probably had something to do with his choice of sacrifice anyway.

But what of those to whom the right thing does not come naturally? Those who want the wrong things and when they are discovered, are surprised and angry by the disapproval? James Dean expressed this so well in “East of Eden”. I don’t remember how it ends, but still, it is hard to be content with less favorable attention than seems deserved, flawed perceivers of our own merits and just deserts though we are.

Oh dear, blessed coffee. I, your unworthy servant do beseech your pardon. My love for you hath hitherto been solely selfish and dependent on thy bountiful effects unto me. Nought did I extol thine worthy existence unto thyself. You do not live only to serve me. Can a coffee bean reach its full telos unconsumed by nought but timely maturation? Of course one at least must reach thereof to multiply thy kind. Surely the bean plant is worthy in its own right, yet verily fruitfulness is the blessed state. And isn’t the telos of fruitfulness consumption? This is why Christ’s body and blood become Communion.

We respond with thankfulness. Not just for the pleasure gained from thine energies, but for the many efforts put forth in the making of your fruit, and that we may be strengthened unto worthy fruitfulness ourselves.

“It seems St. Augustine is telling the story of his life beginning from infancy, mainly to confess his sins, but also to chart his growth and development,” Pavel said, pausing after Chapter 8.

“I think it is interesting that he dwells mainly in his ability to communicate his desires as a baby crying for milk and as a toddler finding more effective and specific means to persuade. So far he’s not into active adventures.”

“I think rhetoric was more highly prized back then.”

Pavel returned to Chapter 9.

“He’s using rhetoric to justify his preferring to play ball in school – now he’s being active – to his studies by comparing play to business, believing that schoolmates behave better than bested businessmen. I don’t think he’s really sorry for not studying, but he still resents his whippings,” Elena said.

“Don’t all children?”

“And prison inmates. ‘I’m innocent!’”

“Everyone feels justified in doing what they do or they wouldn’t do it.”

“So does anyone deserve punishment?”

“A prosecuting attorney’s job is to make the accused seem less innocent than the victim. The defense attorney does the opposite,” said Pavel.

“So it is relative.”

“In that no one is completely innocent, or by the above logic, guilty, then yes. St. Augustine pointed out that even an infant is not innocent in that it can be jealous of another infant taking his place with his mother.”

“It’s sad that infants can be pained that way.”

“You don’t think it is selfish of the infant?”

“Even though the infant may have been satisfied, seeing another infant nurtured by his mother can make him feel threatened and unloved. I think he worries that she will forget about him when he does need her again.”

“Or at least that she has forgotten about him at present, even though he may have forgotten about her in his satiety. The other baby drew his attention back to her and made him think he was missing something. Jealousy works that way.”

“Perhaps some infants don’t feel that rivalry. They may delight in having a companion and in seeing that companion made content.”

“So are they less selfish?”

“They are at least more secure. The jealous infant seems to feel keenly the lack of something, and that is sad.”

“What if he can’t be comforted out of it? What if no matter what, he is only happy if the rival is gone?”

“It makes me wonder if he was deprived of something earlier on. Or maybe he was born that way. But if the latter, how can he be blamed for how he was born?”

“I suppose it is the cross he has to bear and he will have to learn struggle against bitter feelings. He should also pray to be delivered from it.”

“It sounds to me as if St. Augustine is trying pretty hard to combat his ten years of Manicheanism,” Elena said after Pavel read aloud Book 1 Chapter 3 of Confessions.

“He is asking a lot of questions about how God can be in all things.”

“I can see the appeal of Manicheanism. Even if God made all things and sustains all things, he isn’t the things, so you have to go beyond them to find him.”

“Then why do you think God made things to begin with?”

“I don’t know. They are a necessary evil?”

“There you go blaspheming again. How can God’s creation be evil, even if necessary?”

“Because they were not in any way present or necessary to him before he made them. If a person’s goal is to participate in the life of God, then things will not be necessary to him either. If they are, it means he has not attained God’s life.”

“I’ll lay aside the fact that Christ assumed created human nature and first say that if Godlikeness is independence from things, then why are there three persons in the Trinity?”

“That is a good question. The first thing that comes to mind is that it is not good to dwell alone, but that would imply that there is necessity in God and that can’t be right. I don’t think the Father needs the Son and Holy Spirit. Their generation must be out of generosity. He must choose to give them his life. The question is if they need the Father for their life, or if he gave them independence and they choose to abide with him. I lean towards the latter.”

“So you think their essence is self-sustaining.”

“However that works, I do, or else they would live in necessity and wouldn’t be God.”

“That makes sense. Back to things. Why would God make man dependent on things if He made him in his image?”

“I wonder if man was dependent on food before the fall, or if it was just made for his enjoyment.”

“I get the idea that he was dependent on it, and the change was that he would have to work for it instead of having it abundantly provided for him.”

“And he made him at least psychologically dependent on woman, for it was not good that he dwell alone. All this necessity does not seem god-like to me.”

“If God had not created man in a state of dependence then perhaps he would have strayed from God and become a god unto himself.”

“God of what? He would not have needed the worship of other things if he were truly independent.”

“If God doesn’t need our worship, then why is that so much a part of how we are to live?” questioned Pavel.

“It seems that’s another part of our weakness. We need it to develop a relationship where we are reliant on Him.”

“You sound like you don’t think that is fair.”

“It is nice that He wants to be there for us, but I keep coming back to thinking it is sort of coy. He can’t need people to need him, so why would it be good for us to need him? Couldn’t he have made us psychologically and materially independent?”

“But then what motivation would there be to commune with Him?”

“It seems there would be a stalemate. Neither God nor man approaching or distancing himself from the other. Just floating beings drifting around in bliss with nothing to do. Sounds boring, but he can’t have the need for entertainment, so what is the basis for communion?”

“Unity in freedom, but I don’t think we can understand what that would be like because we are so dependent on it, materially and psychologically. We may have been given that need because of our weakness and proneness towards independence.”

“It’s like we have been hobbled.”

“But there is joy in communion with God and man and nature.”

“I wonder if the joy happens after experiencing deprivation. Is joy dependent on deprivation?”

“Maybe so for us, not for God, or Adam would not have been tempted to sin. You’d either have to say he sinned because he felt deprived, or because he was discontent in his constant satiety.”

“Satan may have introduced the discontent, but there must have been something to it else Eve would not have imagined there could be more.”

“Adam did have further growing to do. He took the shortcut though.”

“So if he had lived in satiety, and the shortcut caused him to live in deprivation, without that, what would have been his motivation to keep growing towards maturity? And what is maturity if not the ability to experience self-deprivation?”

“If maturity is learning to deny yourself, then if Adam and Eve had had it, they would have chosen to trust God in obedience and wait for him to provide it.”

“So maturity is doing the right thing even when you feel deprived. Sounds like a test.”

“Or a contest.”

“I could run with that, but I’ll restrain myself and say, are we dependent on winning?”

“Press on toward the prize and all that.”

“Ideally one chooses God and not riches or other material! rewards.”

“You are so determined to forsake the world. You do sound like a Manichean. God loved the world.”

“Elena, if a person desires truth and rightness above all, and he is not sure what should be, how does he know what is true and right?”

“I suppose he does the best he can.”

“That seems dissatisfying.”

“Then do you think it is possible to attain perfect love?”

“Love seems more on and off. You choose to love when you choose to.”

“So all one has to do is to attempt to love and they love as well as they ought, but truth is more difficult to discern and act upon?”

“Unless love is more complicated than I thought.”

“Say you hear a baby crying, what would love entail? Telling him you love him?”

“Probably not. You would have to determine what was the matter.”

“What if he wants to be held longer than the time you have allotted in your busy schedule of equally needful priorities and cries when he is put down? Would it be loving to withhold from him what would stop his crying?”

“I don’t know about such things.”

“So you admit loving correctly is difficult!”

“You have inserted the word, ‘correctly’. That puts it in your category of truth and rightness. Maybe love doesn’t need that additional qualification to be love. Maybe intentions are enough.”

“So if you tell a starving baby you love it and do not feed it, or do feed it but with the wrong things, that is enough, because you intended love?”

“If one was truly ignorant of how to feed a baby and loved with the best intentions, then I think they could be said to have loved. One would then need to determine why they were so ignorant.”

“Then who chooses to be unloving? Couldn’t anyone be convinced that they are loving while depriving their objects of what they really need? I choose correctness over love in that case.”

“Who knows the amount of damage done if a person gives correct things without love. Perhaps it is better to be physically unhealthy but loved.”

“We get back to intentions then. Say a person doesn’t feel love, but gives good things out of a sense of obligation, or commitment to rightness. You could say that their love is in their head instead of their heart, which may disqualify it as love. Perhaps their feelings are more sympathetic to their own situation than the other’s, but at least they know what the other person needs. They do not want that person to go without good things.”

“So you believe love is a feeling. Like warmth and desire. “

“Don’t you?”

“Warmth and desire are a type of love, and they can be present in the midst of ignorance. A commitment to truth and rightness can perhaps be another type of love. A desire for health that transcends the desire for the individual person. I suppose it would be like giving a cup of water to an enemy. If one considers them an enemy, is that love?”

“I don’t know, but I don’t think it is the way the enemy would want to be loved. They may even refuse it if they think they are being patronized.”

“That would be an idealistic enemy!” Pavel said. “One that values correctness over love.”

“So a loving enemy would appreciate a cup of water given under duress?”

“Yes.”

“But would a thirsty enemy appreciate being told he was loved instead of given water?”

“If he was loving, yes, but he may go look for a more competent, unloving enemy.” Pavel smiled.

“Then you’ve proven that correctness is better than love.”

“Your statement presumes that the body’s needs are primary. How can that be the case if everyone dies? I think it is also important to feel psychologically loved.”

“I don’t think one can live on psychological love alone. They would then have to look elsewhere, even if they valued it.”

“Unless they were willing to die. Or thought it was right to die. Or love compelled them to die rather than look elsewhere.”

“Are you saying that a loving person would never leave a harmful situation?”

“No. Sometimes it is unloving to let someone hurt you.”

“How does one know the difference?”

“It is difficult to know what one should do. It is easier to know what one wants.” Pavel reclaimed his statement.

“But isn’t it too utilitarian to say that the reason to live on this earth is to do things?” Pavel questioned.

“What is wrong with utilitarianism?”

“It seems kind of cold. And it can be used to justify technology, which you seem to be against.”

“Perhaps you are confusing efficiency with utility. Usefulness helps one attain what is valuable. One values what one wants, which may or may not be what one should have. Efficiency is more technical and materialistic, less about values.”

“What do you value?”

“Truth and rightness. And you?”

“Love.”

“Your answer is better.” Elena felt unexpectedly sad and walked on with her head down.

“What is the matter?” Pavel asked.

“I don’t know.”

Pavel touched her shoulder. Elena looked up at him with tears in her eyes.

“It’s ok. Hey, look. There’s a squirrel.” Pavel took the twig trap he’d made off his back. He placed it under the tree and took out some pine nuts from his pocket while Elena sliced a piece of apple for bait. He set the trap with the twig around which he had wound a long tied-together strip of cloth made from Elena’s dress. They hid behind a bush and waited the usual amount of time until the squirrel went in and was trapped.

While Pavel stabbed him through the twigs, Elena said, “Utilitarian distractions make a sad person feel better.”

“What an analyst you are. Can’t you just feel things without thinking about them so much?”

“No. You have to make sure your feelings are justified.”

“Why?”

“Because people can be overly sentimental and deceived by their emotions into doing wrong things.”

“Like what?”

“Like spoiling people and getting into illicit relationships. You have to think about consequences.”

“Too much thinking can make you miss a moment. Sometimes you have to go with your gut. Unthinking reflexes also help you catch dinner.”

“You had to intelligently make a stage for your reflexes to be most effective. You couldn’t just blindly start running after the squirrel, or yell at him to come to your knife. The mind has to be in control and protect the gut, as you put it.”

“I think the heart is stronger than the mind. The mind will eventually wear out and the heart will have its way. That’s why you cried a while ago. Your mind couldn’t stop it.”

“The squirrel could.”

“Squirrels must be stronger than hearts, then, right?” Pavel joked.

“Probably because of the strength of the gut.” Elena thought a moment, “If one is starving, food is all they care about. Once satisfied, they can afford to think about and feel other things. Maybe people are different in if one’s conscience or one’s heart is stronger.”

“I still think the heart is stronger, if one is not starving to death. The brain or conscience takes over if the heart is injured.”

“Or if the heart is stupid. Maybe some people’s hearts are naturally smarter and they can listen to them.”